Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3213 

emissions from industrial boilers and 

process heaters at petroleum refineries 

in Delaware, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 3, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1225 Filed 1–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0353–201122; FRL– 

9621–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the state implementation plan (SIP) 

submission, submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), to demonstrate 

that the State meets the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to 

sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. TDEC certified that 

the Tennessee SIP contains provisions 

that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Tennessee (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). Tennessee’s 

infrastructure submission, provided to 

EPA on December 14, 2007, and 

clarified in a subsequent May 28, 2009, 

submission, addressed the required 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, however the 

subject of this notice is limited to 

infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and 

(J). All other applicable Tennessee 

infrastructure elements will be 

addressed in a separate rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0353, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0353,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0353. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What elements are required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Tennessee 

addressed the elements (C) and (J) of 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3214 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour 

average concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 

1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. 

See 62 FR 38856. Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required 

to submit SIPs meeting the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires 

states to address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. 

However, intervening litigation over the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS created 

uncertainty about how to proceed and 

many states did not provide the 

required ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

submission for these newly promulgated 

NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

entered into a consent decree with 

Earthjustice which required EPA, among 

other things, to complete a Federal 

Register notice announcing EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to section 

110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had 

made complete submissions to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

December 15, 2007. Subsequently, EPA 

received an extension of the date to 

complete this Federal Register notice 

until March 17, 2008, based upon 

agreement to make the findings with 

respect to submissions made by January 

7, 2008. In accordance with the consent 

decree, EPA made completeness 

findings for each state based upon what 

the Agency received from each state as 

of January 7, 2008. 

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a 

final rulemaking entitled, 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans; 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS,’’ making a finding 

that each state had submitted or failed 

to submit a complete SIP that provided 

the basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 

16205. For those states that did receive 

findings, such as Tennessee, the 

findings of failure to submit for all or a 

portion of a state’s implementation plan 

established a 24-month deadline for 

EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan to address the 

outstanding SIP elements unless, prior 

to that time, the affected states 

submitted, and EPA approved, the 

required SIPs. However, the findings of 

failure to submit did not impose 

sanctions or set deadlines for imposing 

sanctions as described in section 179 of 

the CAA, because these findings do not 

pertain to the elements contained in the 

Title I part D plan for nonattainment 

areas as required under section 

110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the findings 

of failure to submit for the infrastructure 

submittals are not a SIP call pursuant to 

section 110(k)(5). 

The findings that all or portions of a 

state’s submission are complete 

established a 12-month deadline for 

EPA to take action upon the complete 

SIP elements in accordance with section 

110(k). Tennessee’s infrastructure 

submission was received by EPA on 

December 14, 2007, and was determined 

to be complete on March 27, 2008, for 

all elements with the exception of 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J). Tennessee was 

among other states that received a 

finding of failure to submit because its 

infrastructure submission was not 

complete for elements (C) and (J) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March 1, 

2008. Specifically, the Tennessee 

infrastructure submission did not 

address the part C Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

program requirements promulgated in 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Implementation Rule New Source 

Review (NSR) Update—Phase 2 final 

rule (hereafter referred to as the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update) 

recognizing nitrogen oxide (NOx) as an 

ozone precursor. See 70 FR 71612, 

(November 29, 2005). On May 28, 2009, 

TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA 

for federal approval which included 

revisions to Chapter 1200–03–09 of the 

Tennessee NSR program that address 

changes promulgated in the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update. On 

December 5, 2011, EPA proposed to 

approve Tennessee’s May 28, 2009, SIP 

revision. See 76 FR 75845. EPA is 

moving forward with final action on 

Tennessee’s May 28, 2009, SIP revision 

in an action separate from today’s 

action. Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Tennessee’s infrastructure 

submission for which EPA made the 

findings of failure to submit on March 

27, 2008. This action is not approving 

any specific rule, but rather proposing 

that Tennessee’s SIP, once two separate 

proposed revisions have been 

incorporated, meets certain CAA 

requirements. As discussed further 

below, final approval of today’s 

proposed rule is contingent upon the 

Agency first taking final action to 

approve Tennessee’s Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update (76 FR 

75845) and PSD Greenhouse Gas (GHG) 

Tailoring Rule Revision (75 FR 68265). 

As such, final action approving 

Tennessee’s infrastructure submission 

with respect to infrastructure elements 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J) will not occur prior 

to those revisions being approved in the 

SIP. 

II. What elements are required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous ozone NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements that are 

the subject of this proposed rulemaking 

are listed below 1 and in EPA’s October 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3215 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

2This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

3Today’s proposed rule does not address element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Interstate transport 

requirements were formerly addressed by 

Tennessee consistent with the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR). On December 23, 2008, CAIR was 

remanded by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, 

without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this 

remand, EPA took final action to approve 

Tennessee’s SIP revision, which was submitted to 

comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 46388 (August 20, 

2007). In so doing, Tennessee’s CAIR SIP revision 

addressed the interstate transport provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA 

has promulgated a new rule to address the interstate 

transport. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the 

Transport Rule’’). That rule was recently stayed by 

the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA’s action on 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be addressed in a 

separate action. 

4This requirement was inadvertently omitted 

from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ but as mentioned above is not relevant 

to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

5See Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes 

that these public comments on another proposal are 

not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to 

be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will 

respond to these comments in the appropriate 

rulemaking action to which they apply. 

2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures.2

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.3

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D.4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various 

states across the country. Commenters 

on EPA’s recent proposals for some 

states raised concerns about EPA 

statements that it was not addressing 

certain substantive issues in the context 

of acting on those infrastructure SIP 

submissions.5 Those Commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that 

it would address two issues separately 

and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction at sources, 

that may be contrary to the CAA and 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (SSM); and (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIP 

approved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (director’s 

discretion). EPA notes that there are two 

other substantive issues for which EPA 

likewise stated in other proposals that it 

would address the issues separately: (i) 

Existing provisions for minor source 

new source review programs that may 

be inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations that 

pertain to such programs (minor source 

NSR); and (ii) existing provisions for 

PSD programs that may be inconsistent 

with current requirements of EPA’s 

‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 

80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended 

by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR 

Reform). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. It is important to emphasize that 

EPA is taking the same position with 

respect to these four substantive issues 

in this action on the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 

Tennessee. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

other proposals concerning these four 

issues merely to be informational, and 

to provide general notice of the 

potential existence of provisions within 

the existing SIPs of some states that 

might require future corrective action. 

EPA did not want states, regulated 

entities, or members of the public to be 

under the misconception that the 

Agency’s approval of the infrastructure 

SIP submission of a given state should 

be interpreted as a re-approval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIP 

approved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on the 

infrastructure SIP for Tennessee. 

Unfortunately, the Commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3216 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that 

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

7For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. See ‘‘Rule To 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the 

NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

8See id., 70 FR 25162, at 63–65 (May 12, 2005) 

(explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

9EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8–Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and 

that these SIPs are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, NSR permitting program 

submissions required to address the 

requirements of part D, and a host of 

other specific types of SIP submissions 

that address other specific matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a 

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.6 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.7

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).8 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Similarly, EPA has previously decided 

that it could take action on different 

parts of the larger, general 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS 

without concurrent action on all 

subsections, such as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency 

bifurcated the action on these latter 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within 

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 

to address each of the four prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.9 This illustrates that EPA 

may conclude that subdividing the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may 

sometimes be appropriate for a given 

NAAQS where a specific substantive 

action is necessitated, beyond a mere 

submission addressing basic structural 

aspects of the state’s implementation 

plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every 

element of section 110(a)(2) would be 

relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in 

the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure 

SIP submission for that NAAQS. For 

example, the monitoring requirements 

that might be necessary for purposes of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS 

could be very different than what might 

be necessary for a different pollutant. 

Thus, the content of an infrastructure 

SIP submission to meet this element 

from a state might be very different for 

an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.10

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), 

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3217 

11See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 

Guidance’’). 

12 Id., at page 2. 

13 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 

14 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

15See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

16EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 76 FR 21639 (April 

18, 2011). 

17EPA has recently utilized this authority to 

correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions 

related to PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) 

to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See 61 

FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 

1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 

California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 

Continued 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.11 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 12 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 13 EPA also stated 

its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 14

However, for the one exception to that 

general assumption (i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA gave 

much more specific recommendations. 

But for other infrastructure SIP 

submittals, and for certain elements of 

the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA assumed that each State 

would work with its corresponding EPA 

regional office to refine the scope of a 

State’s submittal based on an 

assessment of how the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) should reasonably 

apply to the basic structure of the State’s 

implementation plans for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.15 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 

bifurcated from the other infrastructure 

elements for those specific 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, 

neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 2009 

Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 

director’s discretion, minor source NSR, 

or NSR Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals for 

other states mentioned these issues not 

because the Agency considers them 

issues that must be addressed in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP as 

required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), 

but rather because EPA wanted to be 

clear that it considers these potential 

existing SIP problems as separate from 

the pending infrastructure SIP actions. 

The same holds true for this action on 

the infrastructure SIPs for Tennessee. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP merely for purposes of 

assuring that the state in question has 

the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by 

accretion over the decades as statutory 

and regulatory requirements under the 

CAA have evolved, they may include 

some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully 

up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 

significant problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the 

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.16 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.17


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3218 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); 

and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections 

to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

18EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 

21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

19On December 30, 2010, EPA published a final 

rulemaking, ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Concerning Greenhouse 

Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 

Plans: Final Rule’’ (75 FR 82536), which narrowed 

its previous approval of PSD programs as applicable 

to GHG-emitting sources in SIPs for 24 states, 

including Tennessee. Specifically, in the PSD 

Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its previous 

approval of Tennessee’s SIP to the extent it applied 

PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources below 

the thresholds described in the final Tailoring Rule. 

The provisions of SIPs from which EPA withdrew 

its approval are treated as submitted by the state but 

not yet acted upon by EPA. Once a state submits 

a SIP revision for EPA’s approval to incorporate the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds, EPA will treat the 

approval as removing the no-longer-approved 

provisions. See 75 FR at 82540. 

20Tennessee requested parallel processing of this 

SIP revision because on the date of its submittal, the 

revision was not yet state-effective. Under parallel 

processing an EPA Regional Office works closely 

with the state while developing new or revised 

regulations. Generally the state submits a copy of 

the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA 

before conducting its public hearing. EPA then 

proceeds with a federal rulemaking to add to or 

revise the SIP during approximately the same time 

during which the state is holding its public hearing. 

The state and EPA thus provide for public comment 

periods on both the state and federal action in 

parallel. 

21EPA’s proposed approval of: (1) Tennessee’s 

PSD/NSR regulations which address the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update requirements and (2) 

Tennessee’s PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions 

which addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability in Tennessee (See 76 FR 75845 and 75 

FR 68265). 

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.18

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Tennessee addressed the elements (C) 

and (J) of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The Tennessee infrastructure 

submission addresses the provisions of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to 

elements (C) and (J), as described below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for 

enforcement of control measures 

including review of proposed new 

sources. In this action, EPA is proposing 

to approve Tennessee’s infrastructure 

SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

program in the SIP that regulates the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. Chapter 

1200–3–9, Construction and Operating 

Permits, of Tennessee’s SIP pertains to 

the construction of any new major 

stationary source or any project at an 

existing major stationary source in an 

area designated as nonattainment, 

attainment or unclassifiable. This 

regulation addresses many of the 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C) 

requirements, however, as discussed 

below, there are two pending revisions 

to the Tennessee SIP (including 

revisions to Chapter 1200–3–9) that are 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). 

These two revisions are related to the 

Ozone Implementation NSR Update and 

the ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (75 FR 31514). 

The first pending revision to the 

Tennessee SIP (Ozone Implementation 

NSR Update revisions) was submitted 

by TDEC on May 28, 2009. That revision 

modifies provisions of the state’s SIP at 

Chapter 1200–3–9, Construction and 

Operating Permits. In addition to 

meeting the requirements of the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update, these 

revisions are also necessary to address 

portions of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements described at element 

110(a)(2)(C). Specifically, the May 28, 

2009, SIP revisions address the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update 

requirements to include NOx as an 

ozone precursor for permitting 

purposes. These revisions involve 

changes to major source thresholds for 

sources in certain classes of 

nonattainment areas, changes to offset 

ratios for marginal, moderate, serious, 

severe, and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas, provisions 

addressing offset requirements for 

facilities that shut down or curtail 

operation, and a requirement stating 

that NOx emissions are ozone 

precursors. On December 5, 2011, EPA 

proposed approval of Tennessee’s May 

28, 2009, submission. See 76 FR 75845. 

EPA will take final action on these 

regulations in a separate action from 

this notice. 

The second pending rulemaking 

pertains to revisions to the PSD program 

promulgated in the GHG Tailoring Rule. 

On November 5, 2010, EPA published a 

rulemaking proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s PSD GHG Tailoring Rule 

revision,19 which was submitted to EPA 

on August 30, 2010, for parallel 

processing.20 See 75 FR 68265. This 

proposed revision establishes 

appropriate emission thresholds for 

determining which new stationary 

sources and modification projects 

become subject to Tennessee’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions, and thereby addresses the 

thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability in Tennessee. On January 

11, 2012, EPA received Tennessee’s PSD 

GHG Tailoring Rule revision final 

submittal. EPA will take final action on 

these regulations in a separate action 

from this notice. 

Both of these proposed SIP 

revisions 21 address requisite 

requirements of infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(C), therefore, today’s action to 

propose approval of infrastructure SIP 

element 110(a)(2)(C) is contingent upon 

EPA taking final action to approve each 

of these pending revisions into the 

Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding 

today’s proposed approval of 

infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C) 

will not occur prior to final approval of 

these related SIP revisions. 

EPA also notes that today’s action is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

the State’s existing minor NSR program 

itself to the extent that it is inconsistent 

with EPA’s regulations governing this 

program. EPA believes that a number of 

states may have minor NSR provisions 

that are contrary to the existing EPA 

regulations for this program. EPA 

intends to work with states to reconcile 

state minor NSR programs with EPA’s 

regulatory provisions for the program. 

The statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Tennessee’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for program 

enforcement of control measures 

including review of proposed new 

sources related to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3219 

22EPA’s proposed approval of: (1) Tennessee’s 

PSD/NSR regulations which addresses the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update requirements and (2) 

Tennessee’s PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions 

which addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability in Tennessee (See 76 FR 75845 and 75 

FR 68265). 

2. 110(a)(2)(J). In this action, EPA is 

also proposing to approve Tennessee’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS with respect to the general 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

provides for meeting the applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127; and the 

PSD and visibility protection 

requirements of part C of the Act. 

110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) 

Consultation with government officials: 

Chapter 1200–3–9 Construction and 

Operating Permits, as well as the 

Regional Haze Implementation Plan 

(which allows for consultation between 

appropriate state, local, and tribal air 

pollution control agencies as well as the 

corresponding Federal Land Managers), 

provide for consultation with 

government officials whose jurisdictions 

might be affected by SIP development 

activities. Tennessee adopted state-wide 

consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity. These consultation 

procedures include considerations 

associated with the development of 

mobile inventories for SIPs. 

Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires TDEC 

to consult with federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials on the development of motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. EPA 

approved Tennessee’s consultation 

procedures on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 

26492). EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Tennessee’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with government officials 

related to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS when necessary. 

110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) 

Public notification: TDEC has public 

notice mechanisms in place to notify the 

public of ozone and other pollutant 

forecasting, including an air quality 

monitoring Web site with ground level 

ozone alerts, http://tn.gov/environment/ 

apc/ozone/. Chapter 1200–3–15, 

Emergency Episode Requirements, 

requires that TDEC notify the public of 

any air pollution episode or NAAQS 

violation. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Tennessee’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide public notification 

related to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS when necessary. 

110(a)(2)(J) (Part C) PSD and visibility 

protection: Tennessee demonstrates its 

authority to regulate new and modified 

sources of ozone precursors, volatile 

organic compounds, and NOx to assist 

in the protection of air quality in 

Chapter 1200–3–9, Construction and 

Operating Permits. As with 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) also 

requires compliance with applicable 

provisions of the PSD program 

described in part C of the Act. 

Accordingly, the pending EPA actions 

on the Ozone Implementation NSR 

Update and GHG Tailoring Rule 

revisions to Tennessee’s SIP are 

likewise prerequisites to today’s 

proposed action to approve the State’s 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J). See 

the discussion for element 110(a)(2)(C) 

above for a description of these two 

pending revisions to the Tennessee SIP. 

Both of these proposed SIP 

revisions 22 address requisite 

requirements of infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility 

protection), therefore, today’s action to 

propose approval of infrastructure SIP 

element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility 

protection) is contingent upon EPA 

taking final action to approve each of 

these pending revisions into the 

Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding 

today’s proposed approval of 

infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) 

(PSD and visibility protection) will not 

occur prior to final approval of these 

related SIP revisions. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act 

(which includes sections 169A and 

169B). In the event of the establishment 

of a new NAAQS, however, the 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C do not 

change. Thus, EPA finds that there is no 

new visibility obligation ‘‘triggered’’ 

under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new 

NAAQS becomes effective. This would 

be the case even in the event a 

secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is 

established, because this NAAQS would 

not affect visibility requirements under 

part C. Tennessee has submitted SIP 

revisions for approval to satisfy the 

requirements of the CAA Section 169A 

and 169B, and the regional haze and 

best available retrofit technology rules 

contained in 40 CFR 51.308. These 

revisions are currently under review 

and will be acted on in a separate 

action. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Tennessee’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to implement PSD 

programs and to provide for visibility 

protection related to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, following final 

approval of the proposed revisions to 

the Tennessee SIP regarding the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update and the 

PSD GHG Tailoring Rule Revision, 

TDEC will have addressed elements 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the CAA 110(a)(1) 

and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to 

EPA’s October 2, 2007, guidance to 

ensure that the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Tennessee. EPA is 

proposing to approve Tennessee’s 

infrastructure submission for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for these 

elements, contingent upon the final 

approval of those revisions, because its 

December 12, 2007, and May 28, 2009, 

submissions will then be consistent 

with section 110 of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3220 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 12, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1220 Filed 1–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0960; A–1–FRL– 

9621–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Determination of 

Attainment of the 1997 Ozone Standard 

for the Western Massachusetts 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing two 

separate and independent 

determinations regarding the 

Springfield (Western Massachusetts) 

moderate 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. First, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Western 

Massachusetts nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone, based upon complete, 

quality-assured, certified ambient air 

monitoring data that show the area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the 2007–2009 

and 2008–2010 monitoring periods. 

Preliminary data for 2011 indicate the 

area continues to attain the standard. If 

this proposed determination is made 

final, under the provisions of EPA’s 

ozone implementation rule, the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning State 

Implementation Plans related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. Second, based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

air monitoring data for 2007–2009, EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

Western Massachusetts nonattainment 

area also attained the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS as of June 15, 2010, its 

applicable attainment date. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2011–0960 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0960,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0960. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 

The www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912, 

telephone number (617) 918–1664, fax 

number (617) 918–0664, email 

Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS